But he would quite likely know about the existance of the plots and know the top tier in a given plot's leadership. Osama even met directly with some the 9/11 hijackers (we have video of that).
That doesn't mean bin Laden knew details of the plot. He laid on hands to bless the enterprise, for his own self-glorification. It's all about
him remember. The playboy terrorist.
Al-Zarqawi certainly knew the names and general plans for the failed chemical bomb attack in Jordan. In fact, one reason it may have failed is that al-Zarqawi wasn't able to properly monitor the plot's execution (because he was too busy running from US forces).
Zarqawi was nothing to do with Al Qaeda, and I don't share your certainty about the "failed chemical attack". Do you believe everything you're told by security services?
Zarqawi took on the Al Qaeda name in return for a bunch of Saudi money. So let's not get sidetracked.
So don't simply discount the assertion that with high probability KSM knew information we vitally needed to know about ongoing plots and the terrorists involved in them.
I'll concede a very low probability that he might have a name or two, but terrorists tend to use lots of names.
On the contrary. Knowing that a plot even exists and knowing it's target is the single most important datum needed to defeat it. And knowing who the top terrorists are running the specific plot is probably next most important. So KSM did have, with high probability, information that would allow us to foil the plots.
Even if he had information on plots-in-progress it would be useless after a couple of weeks. Anything he knew when he was picked up would automatically by regarded as blown.
And the CIA reported that he did disclose the existance of previously unknown plots, the names of terrorists involved in them, and that information helped foil the plots.
They would say that, wouldn't they?
Not true. Most al-qaeda wouldn't be nearly as informed about the way that al-Qaeda is structured and operates.
Of course they would. Al Qaeda's structure is all part of its rationale.
It's called compartmentalization.
If by that you mean what I think you mean, it's called a cell-structure. The idea goes back to the 19thCE (at least) but there are always people who justify their existence by inventing new names for old things.
It's called just being smarter than the average al-Qaeda member.
But then you might mean something else entirely.
What's clever about torture?
It's why capturing the guy at the top is ALWAYS important.
Cell-structure means that there are no critical nodes. Not even the top guy (who's still out there down a hole, apparently).
And the CIA has stated that what was learned about the organization from KSM has saved many lives.
Well they would say that, wouldn't they?
Not as loose as you think. For example, al-Qaeda kept detailed "employment" records and had the equivalent of employee handbooks. And we aren't talking about al-Qaeda these days but the way it was back in 2004.
If the CIA has those records why did they need to torture people for names? Of couse they might only be known from reputation.
That's your claim. The CIA says something different. So the only way to resolve this is to have Obama release the records of the interrogations needed to do that ... or have some form of very impartial jury do it. Will you join me in calling for that?
They will come out sooner or later (unless they're destroyed, which will send its own message). It'll be interesting to see what the CIA's attitude is. At the moment they can claim anything, as can Cheney, and claim justification by the absence of attacks since 9/11. The actual tapes would get us past a lot of speculation.
Nobody's got anything to hide anymore. This was all years ago.
Except that's not what top CIA and other intel officials say, or what the *facts* reported by various sources say. Like I said, the verdict is still out. You aren't in a position to claim with any certainty that "he didn't know a damn' thing".
History will bear me out. Some things are just bleedin' obvious.
It took Al Qaeda years to pull off 9/11, and they used up all their assets in the process. It brought a *****-storm down on them like they'd never imagined and they've been running from hole to hole ever since. Frickin' playboy terrorists. The only audience they impress are US Americans.
Except the CIA says that's wrong. In fact, the CIA stated that information learned by enhanced interrogation even stopped a large terrorist attack in Britian only days before it would have occurred.
Well there's a thing. Do we have anything more to go on than their word?
Had we waited for conventional interrogation methods (taking the terrorist to lunch at Denny's?) to work it's magic, it seems likely that particular attack would have succeeded. With the loss of many lives.
It doesn't seem likely to me. I'm a sceptic, particularly when it comes to self-serving unsupported statements by security services about things that didn't happen.
We knew a great deal more than that. And you know it.
No I don't. I don't even know what "breaking" means for the special forces subjects. Did they press an "Uncle" button to make it stop? Or did they have to give up some supremely embarrassing incident from their youth? What exactly were they broken
into?
Well at this point only Obama knows for sure. We have two sides saying publically quite different things. Both potentially politically motivated. So the only way to resolve this is for Obama to release the interrogation and followup reports or convene a truly independent jury to look at the data and tell the public. But given past experience with the latter, I think I'd prefer to have them simply release the reports (perhaps heaviy redacted to hide any still useful information or ongoing threat concerns). Now won't you join me in that demand ... are you hiding from really finding out?
Let's see the tapes. I'm all in favour. Who isn't?
The CIA should demand their release. The CIA's credibility - nay, their
honour - has been impugned (not least by the likes of me). They should be able to point to more than unsupported reports from "sources".
I'm particularly interested in the way they saved the UK from something awful. Or didn't. Only the tapes will tell.
)
